Date: 27-10-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

This appeal is directed against the order dt. 10-02-2014 in Case No. 204/2013, passed by the ld. District Forum, Burdwan, whereby the complaint has been allowed against the OP.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

Brief case of the Complainants is that they took an insurance policy in respect of their vehicle being no. WB-38/Y-3151 (Tata Manza) from the OP, which was valid for the period from 31-03-2011 to 30-03-2012.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 02-05-2011, and accordingly, due intimation was conveyed to the insurance company on 04-05-2011.  Accordingly, the OP sent Mr. Rajib Roy, Surveyor to assess the loss and damage of the vehicle in question. Under the supervision of the said Surveyor, the Complainants carried out necessary repairing work of the damaged vehicle incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2,02,801/- and submitted the final bill to the Surveyor on 23-08-2011 to facilitate payment.  Meanwhile, the OP sought for certain clarifications/documents, to which the Complainants gave due reply, yet the insurer did not settle their claim, in spite of issuance of several letters/reminders, including legal notices.  Hence, the case.

It transpires from the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum that the OP kept on seeking adjournments on repeated occasions to file WV, but ultimately did not do so.  However, the Ld. Advocate for the OP argued verbally that the instant petition of complaint is barred by limitation because the accident took place on 02-05-2011, but the Complainant moved the Ld. District Forum on 04-09-2013. The Appellant has moved the appeal with the contention that they repudiated the claim of the Complainant for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy; that mere production of estimate without any corroborative evidence cannot be the basis of any liability under the policy.

Point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any sort of legal or factual incongruity, which otherwise necessitates an intervention thereto in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it was rather an exparte order, though otherwise stated, and that thanks to the utter negligence of their Ld. Lawyer, they were not properly represented before the Ld. District Forum.  The Ld. Lawyer, who was entrusted with the job to defend their case before the Ld. District Forum, did neither file WV nor any evidence.  Therefore, there was no value of his verbal submission made before the Ld. District Forum during arguments.  This is a case, in which the information about the incident/accident was intimated to the insurance company after two days, and no plausible reasoning was put forth for such lapses.  Holding their Ld. Lawyer, who represented the insurance company before the Ld. District Forum, squarely responsible for such an adverse order, the Ld. Advocate prayed for an opportunity to agitate their viewpoints before the Ld. District Forum.  He has relied upon one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4962/2002 and two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 321/2005 and Revision Petition No. 4506/2013.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand, has made out that they have been subjected to harassment at the hands of the insurance company ever since they filed their claim.  The Insurance Company was duly informed about the occurrence of the incident/accident on 04-05-2011, i.e. only two days after, for which an explanation was given, that of remaining outside.  The Complainants were never informed about the fate of their claim, and no repudiation letter was ever sent to them by the Insurance Company.  Estimate about the cost of repairing of the insured vehicle was given to the insurance company, who opted to remain silent, and only the previous insurance was called for, though the same had no bearing on the merit of the instant claim.  As there was no proper repudiation being made by the OP, there is no question of limitation in filing the instant complaint petition.  It was the insurance company, who played havoc before the Ld. District Forum by seeking adjournments after adjournments, but ultimately did not file any WV or evidence, instead all on a sudden its Ld. Lawyer appeared and made necessary submission in defence, which is apparent from the materials on record, being denoted on the body of the impugned order.  Therefore, any interference with the impugned order, which is otherwise a sound and judicious decision, would only result in aggravation of their harassment and mental stress/agony.

At first, it is to be stated that the so called delay in informing the insurance company by the Complainants per se is no delay at all.  Further, the objection of the insurance company as regards maintainability of the case being barred by limitation is not at all tenable, as the claim of the Complainants has not been properly repudiated by the insurance company and communicated to the Complainants of such decision.  Besides, the materials on record do not leave any iota of doubt as to the negligence and apathy on the part of the insurance company in conducting the case before the Ld. District Forum. More so, the matter has been properly dealt with by the Ld. District Forum, and there is no cogent ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order in this appeal.  In fact, while the Complainants prayed for a sum of Rs. 2,02,801/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 23-08-2011, the Ld. Forum, in its wisdom, allowed the interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint petition, i.e. 04-09-2013, which is perfectly in order.  Further, though the Complainants have prayed for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony, and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost, the Ld. District Forum allowed only Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively, in these regards.  There is, thus, nothing to disturb the impugned order, which should sustain.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents, but without making any order as to cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.